Olives @olives@qoto.org
Software Engineer. Psy / Tech / Sex Science Enthusiast. Controversial?
Free Expression. Human rights / Civil Liberties. Anime. Liberal.
Joined May 2023
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/10/eff-urges-second-circuit-affirm-injunction-new-yorks-dangerous-online-hateful I'm not a fan of hate speech, but the last thing you need is a poor argument like this to try to dance around someone's rights. Simply unconstitutional.
Olives
boosted
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/06/ai-chatbot-encouraged-man-who-planned-to-kill-queen-court-told I don't see how it's the bot though. He was already planning to do it, and the bot hardly even commented on it...
If this is his excuse, it is lousy.
This is poor sensationalistic reporting.
https://qoto.org/@olives/110669983500535507
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/06/ai-chatbot-encouraged-man-who-planned-to-kill-queen-court-told
They leave out the part that it wouldn't have made a difference. This is also old news.
Olives
boosted
Read why "Web Environment Integrity" is terrible, and why we must vocally oppose it now. Google's latest maneuver, if we don't act now to stop it, threatens our freedom to explore the Internet with browsers of our choice: https://u.fsf.org/40a #EndDRM #Enshittification #Google #WebStandards #DefectiveByDesign
"Shitty how something can be named something that sounds so wonderful, but is utterly evil."
On the contrary, if I see a bill with a name like "prevention" or "safety", and it has something to do with the Internet, I automatically assume it is something really bad.
Olives
boosted
https://reason.com/2023/10/04/rishi-sunak-to-ban-cigarettes-for-brits/
"People in England born on or after January 1, 2009, will be banned from ever buying cigarettes under plans announced Wednesday by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak."
"But cigarettes aren't alone in Sunak's war on nicotine—disposable e-cigarettes, which have been blamed for an uptick in youth vaping, could also be banned.
The number of British youth who have tried vaping rose from 7.7 percent in 2022 to 11.3 percent in 2023. However, the same survey data shows no significant change in the proportion of youth vaping regularly. Laws banning vape sales to children are already on the books, and tobacco harm reduction advocates argue enforcing the law would be a better bet than playing prohibition whack-a-mole."
"Bhutan became the first country to ban tobacco in 2004 and suffered a boom in smuggling. The prohibition was repealed in 2020 and was recognized as a failure. South Africa banned tobacco during COVID-19 with similar results, entrenching the illicit trade."
This sounds like a War on Drugs. That thing which doesn't work.
I suspect though that "Facebook is plotting with the U.K. Government to strip you of your privacy and rights" would not sound much less sinister.
Examining it further, while "WeProtect" appears to have a "company or two", currently featuring Snapchat, this doesn't seem like much more than a t...
Olives
boosted
Remember #Patreon set up new on-by-default sharing of your account information with every other Patreon user (and maybe the world)? Remember people posting how to turn it off, because they were using confusing language/dark patterns to try to #trick you into oversharing?
I got the "welcome to the new Patreon" today, and ... they've turned the "Community Profile" setting back on after I deliberately turned it off.
Go check your settings, and opt out -- again.
One concern I have with the fediverse are a few "fediverse hosting services" which are popping up (it's not really surprising, services like this exist for all kinds of things, such as blogs).
These create points of control, and from the looks of them, quite a few appear to be bad faith actors who want to wear a little golden crown and control things.
A neutral host is better because they're not really interested in what goes on on the fediverse (the so-called fediverse drama), only whether you pay the bill.
I don't know what the "new version" of KOSA is going to be, however, it is almost certainly not going to fix the fundamental problems with the bill.
Their entire approach, and mindset, with this bill is problematic, so it is likely it will just lead to more obfuscation and pretending the problems with the bill don't exist.
https://euobserver.com/digital/157507 Ylva just won't stop speaking nonsense.
https://qoto.org/@olives/111181593903605992 I wrote here that she is effectively telling on herself by making it out as if the only people worth listening to are Big Tech (and some government pals).
https://qoto.org/@olives/111021131813603000 I've commented on a similar "Big Tech" argument here by a lobbyist / shill with close government ties. A similar one was made in Australia in 2021 by disingenuous officials. Senator Blumenthal seems to have tried to use it in support of the infamous EARN IT Act at one point.
The 2011 directive has it's own issues, and it's not a perfect solution either. I think too much weight is put on it here.
Examining it further, while "WeProtect" appears to have a "company or two", currently featuring Snapchat, this doesn't seem like much more than a token company to make the org appear more diverse than it actually is. The "foundation" is overwhelmingly in the hands of governmental / law enforcement interests, as is it's direction.
Also, these companies aren't exactly ones known for being protective of fundamental rights, such as the freedom of expression and privacy. Snapchat has never used E2EE, and hasn't been known for making difficult policy decisions, or opposing rights violations. If anything, it seems they're more preoccupied with trying to wipe their reputation away of being a "platform used primarily for sexting".
Google / Facebook, if they're still there, might balk at breaking E2EE. However, it's not clear this might have been discussed with them here, and this is not the only way someone's rights might be violated. They also don't have a unique interest in effectively advocating for someone's rights. Even if they did, their presence seems mainly advisory.
Olives
boosted
Should the #Government #Control What #Kids See #Online?
#LGBTQ #ACLU #KOSA freedom #parenting #internet #atLiberty
Olives
boosted
An anti-puritan starter kit:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2015.1023427
https://psyarxiv.com/ehqgv/
A couple of studies showing that porn is not associated with sexism. One was carried out by German scientists, another was carried out by Canadians.
https://qoto.org/@olives/110462274531891870
American scientists carried out a meta analysis of 59 studies. They found that porn isn't associated with crime. A meta analysis is basically a study where someone studies studies.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31432547/ Nor does it seem this is the case among adolescents (although, the meta analysis already pointed to that). Here, the minors who used more porn were less sexually aggressive.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault
https://qoto.org/@olives/110400288665794817
There are even studies (covering a number of different countries) which show porn is associated with less crime, even among criminals.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31042055/ While an older Dutch study showed there might be worse levels of "sexual satisfaction" among adolescents with porn, a Croatian lab failed to replicate that.
I think that some have concerns about young people and some forms of BDSM. I don't have anything in particular to say about this, other than that sex education might be useful. That's the usual recommendation in science.
It's hard to say exactly why this might be appealing to someone. That said, with BDSM in general, someone might turn to it to deal with complex psychological issues. Censorship isn't something that I'm fond of.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563222001637
This one is a meta analysis on sexualization in video games. The study finds that studies tend to pick cut offs where it is difficult to distinguish signal from noise, that increases the number of false positives.
There are also results which contradict the theory of sexualization being harmful. In the end, the study fails to find a link between this and sexism, and this and mental well-being.
I'm usually sceptical of apparent links, as the "scientific pile on effect" (as one described it) drives people to go looking for "links" between porn and "something bad" however tenuous it might be, or methodologically flawed an approach might be (and later, that something is debunked).
Since this is a matter of a certain amount of nonsense, no it is not relevant if the content is "child-like" (also, this is far more likely to hit someone good than someone bad who don't need it), although I would be against sexual content with real children for ethical reasons.
I don't have the time or resources to debunk bad faith takes one by one, so I will allow my words here to speak for themselves.
A British cop asserting something doesn't magically change this calculus.
An anti-puritan starter kit: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2015.1023427 https://psyarxiv.com/ehqgv/ A couple of studies show...
I wouldn't be surprised, if they just relied on another jurisdiction to use it for them, and just passed on the "results".
In Canada, Clearview’s also banned and has to delete all photos of Canadians it has in its database. https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-news/news-and-a...
https://www.weprotect.org/wp-content/uploads/WePROTECT-Advisory-Board-Terms-of-Reference.pdf
"by advising the steering committee of the new Global Fund to End Violence Against Children and helping to secure funding for the Fund’s work"
This refers to one of the roles of the Board.
Interesting... It never occurred to me they might be getting funded by these people.
Though, if you dig down, even these "think of the children" people usually have strong ties to government.
I'm not going into that now though. #chatcontrol
Ylva kind of tells on herself(1) when she says she's been primarily talking to the "think of the children" people and "Big Tech" (conflating Big Tech with anyone worth talking to).
Then, she effectively kicked civil society to the curb (who report great difficulty in trying to contact her(2)).
In an unsurprising twist, it turns out she was involved in "WeProtect". A little echo chamber (launched by the British Government(3)), it has "think of the children" interests, Google / Facebook appear to be involved (or were)(4), and government interests.
As has always been the issue, she ignores the fundamental rights of everyone, whether that is the freedom of expression, privacy, or due process, and instead echoes the rhetoric of a particular group of people (who either ignore fundamental rights concerns outright, minimize them, a few even rationalizing some rights violations as a "good thing").
We also get clearly nonsense claims from them like one in four children have been raped / molested which feels like something there just to muddy the waters. In fact, any misleading claim can be advanced, if it is dramatic enough to stir up an emotional reaction. No need to think of whether it is even plausible (or debunked, as is often the case). Toss it like a grenade and run.
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Shields%2C_Baroness_Shields
4 https://www.weprotect.org/wp-content/uploads/WePROTECT-Advisory-Board-Terms-of-Reference.pdf
Software Engineer. Psy / Tech / Sex Science Enthusiast. Controversial?
Free Expression. Human rights / Civil Liberties. Anime. Liberal.
Joined May 2023
